[spauldingg]

Sick, sad world

Roberts spoke about a bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry in June at a Fort Worth church school that requires parental consent before minors can have abortions and places additional restrictions on late-term abortions.

In relation to those changes, Roberts noted that the Legislature two years ago altered the definition of an individual in homicide statutes from “a human being who has been born and is alive” to “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation, from fertilization until birth.”

There was debate when the definition of individual was changed about whether the effect would make abortion the equivalent of murder. So lawmakers took particular care to write into the homicide statute that a lawful medical procedure performed with consent by a physician or other licensed health-care provider, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result, is an abortion. That provided a lawful defense or exception to homicide laws.

Continuing to connect the statutory dots, however, Roberts told local prosecutors that there is no such defense provided for a doctor who performs an unlawful medical procedure, such as an abortion on a minor without parental consent.

So, in effect, the doctor would have killed a child younger than 6 in an illegal abortion and thereby subjected himself or herself to potential prosecution for capital murder, Roberts told the dumbfounded audience.

I wish some women would join this forum, from either right or left, to get a different perspective that the ones I expect from the men here.

[TETENAL]

You should wish that more women get into politics.

[spauldingg]

That, too.

[besson3c]

I stick by my beliefs that government shouldn't be in the business of creating legislation that deals with this sticky social issues. This is up to the individual.

Perhaps this is where my Libertarian side rears its head.

[loki74]

I do not think that abortions should be 100% illegal. Morality of the issue can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

However, as a teenager myself, I think that parents have a right to at the very least know what their child is doing. I mean, you need parent consent to do any other operation. Hell you probably need parental consent to take a kid's temperature! It is necessary, in abortion and all else.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

I do not think that abortions should be 100% illegal. Morality of the issue can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

However, as a teenager myself, I think that parents have a right to at the very least know what their child is doing. I mean, you need parent consent to do any other operation. Hell you probably need parental consent to take a kid's temperature! It is necessary, in abortion and all else.

So 21 is that magical age where a young adult can have full control over their own bodies, and up to the day before the kid's 21's birthday, the parent should be responsible? Talk about judging something on a case-by-case basis, I don't see how an arbitrary age handles this task.


If I child feels he/she is mentally equipped to make a decision about when to have sex and get pregnant, they can deal with the guilt of having to have an abortion for the rest of their lives, if this is the only course of action that makes sense for all involved.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So 21 is that magical age where a young adult can have full control over their own bodies, and up to the day before the kid's 21's birthday, the parent should be responsible? Talk about judging something on a case-by-case basis, I don't see how an arbitrary age handles this task.


If I child feels he/she is mentally equipped to make a decision about when to have sex and get pregnant, they can deal with the guilt of having to have an abortion for the rest of their lives, if this is the only course of action that makes sense for all involved.

He didn't say anything about 21 or an arbitrary age. You're putting words into his mouth to fit your agenda.

[besson3c]

double postage action

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

He didn't say anything about 21 or an arbitrary age. You're putting words into his mouth to fit your agenda.

Well, 21 (or is it 18?!) is the age where parents are no longer legal guardians that are responsible for making these sorts of decisions, so this is the flaw in his reasoning, IMHO.

What would my agenda be?

[Doofy]

We have a problem with this here... ...13 year-old girls are out there getting abortions without their parents knowing about it. The consequences are as follows: Abortions sometimes (OK, a lot of times) screw up the ex-mother's heads. If the parents haven't been informed and the girl starts to act strangely then all sorts of scenarios start to play out in the parents' heads... ...why is she failing at school? Why is she rejecting her friends? Is she on drugs? This strains the relationship (probably already tenuous if the girl chose not to tell her parents) even further and causes a breakdown in relations.

And all said and done, a doctor performing an abortion on an underage girl is an accessory to statutory rape.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

We have a problem with this here... ...13 year-old girls are out there getting abortions without their parents knowing about it. The consequences are as follows: Abortions sometimes (OK, a lot of times) screw up the ex-mother's heads. If the parents haven't been informed and the girl starts to act strangely then all sorts of scenarios start to play out in the parents' heads... ...why is she failing at school? Why is she rejecting her friends? Is she on drugs? This strains the relationship (probably already tenuous if the girl chose not to tell her parents) even further and causes a breakdown in relations.

And all said and done, a doctor performing an abortion on an underage girl is an accessory to statutory rape.

I don't have an answer to this. All I'm saying is that making parental consent mandatory up until the age of whatever is an imperfect solution. There are 30 year olds who are emotionally immature enough that they ought to get parental consent too. I just don't think that an age cut-off is a perfect solution to any problem, although it might be the best solution we have.

[UNTeMac]

Sorry you hate me. For what it's worth, this part of my state makes me sick too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by UNTiMac

Sorry you hate me. For what it's worth, this part of my state makes me sick too.

I almost went to school at North Texas. What are you studying?

[Millennium]

Age-of-majority laws, whatever their object (drinking, driving, sex, voting, abortion sans parental notification, or whatever) are all inherently flawed by the problem that people mature at different rates. Some people over a given age are certainly not mature enough to handle that which the age supposedly governs, while some under that age can be quite mature indeed, at least concerning the subject of that law.

However, what would you propose as an alternative? What legal test could be applied to these situations, and how could people ensure that the test is fair? Could any test for such a thing even truly be fair? I'm rapidly concluding that age-of-majority laws, while certainly a Bad Thing, may be the best that law can work with.

[baw]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

why I hate republicans and texans

With a thread title like that, this thread is going to be fair and objective.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And all said and done, a doctor performing an abortion on an underage girl is an accessory to statutory rape.

You did OK till the end...
An underage girl that had sex with an underage boy and gets and abortion is in NO WAY related to statutory rape.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by loki74

I do not think that abortions should be 100% illegal. Morality of the issue can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

However, as a teenager myself, I think that parents have a right to at the very least know what their child is doing. I mean, you need parent consent to do any other operation. Hell you probably need parental consent to take a kid's temperature! It is necessary, in abortion and all else.

If you will be judging it on a case-by-case basis you will be delaying it too long which will mean that the woman hasn't got any control over the situation anymore. It's a bad way to do it.

But when it comes to under-age (-18 here) abortions I think the parents should be notified. They shouldn't have the last word on it though because that should be between the doctor and the pregnant girl.

And these laws which result in doctors being in danger of lawsuits for doing their job is just completely f*cked up.

[spauldingg]

They are not in danger of just lawsuits, they are subject to the death penalty. The real point of this thread, despite my "fair and objective" title.

Other possible threads from the same article: Why is the governor signing this in church school? and: "why did he pre sign, at the same time, an anti gay marriage law that hasn't even passed state legislation yet?"

[RAILhead]

Sp why do you hate Texans? And Republicans? You ought to look up a good orthopaedic surgeon so you can get your knee looked at, man.

[spauldingg]

Umm, because republicans in texas want to kill doctors?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

You did OK till the end...
An underage girl that had sex with an underage boy and gets and abortion is in NO WAY related to statutory rape.

I was speaking from a UK perspective but attempting to put it in US terms. My bad. Here, underage sex is illegal whatever the age of the dude. So technically, doctors offering secret abortions to underages girl is "aiding and abetting" an illegal act.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So technically, doctors offering secret abortions to underages girl is "aiding and abetting" an illegal act.

Doctors doing operations on under age persons without the consent of their parents is illegal. But, doing an abortion without the consent of a parent does NOT make a doctor an accesory to statutory rape. The doctor had nothing to do with the, let's say "act of statutory rape". It already happened before she came to see him to get an abortion. The doctor performing an abortion without parental consent is another "crime" completely separate from the statutory rape.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Doctors doing operations on under age persons without the consent of their parents is illegal. But, doing an abortion without the consent of a parent does NOT make a doctor an accesory to statutory rape. The doctor had nothing to do with the, let's say "act of statutory rape". It already happened before she came to see him to get an abortion.

This is not the case. There's evidence that the young girls here are thinking "so what if I get pregnant, I can get an abortion". Thus, the knowledge that they sort the problem out later contributes to their decision to have sex in the first place - it says "it's OK to do it".

A doctor giving underage abortions is also not reporting a crime - which is a crime in itself here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Doctors doing operations on under age persons without the consent of their parents is illegal. But, doing an abortion without the consent of a parent does NOT make a doctor an accesory to statutory rape. The doctor had nothing to do with the, let's say "act of statutory rape". It already happened before she came to see him to get an abortion. The doctor performing an abortion without parental consent is another "crime" completely separate from the statutory rape.

Not necessarily true. You are forgetting about doctor-patient confidentiality here. The question here is whose rights take precedence: the parents' rights to know what their minor is doing or the personal rights of the teenager/adolescent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

A doctor giving underage abortions is also not reporting a crime - which is a crime in itself here.

This is only true if underage sex is a crime. If it's not (as it is in many countries), this point is moot.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Age-of-majority laws, whatever their object (drinking, driving, sex, voting, abortion sans parental notification, or whatever) are all inherently flawed by the problem that people mature at different rates. Some people over a given age are certainly not mature enough to handle that which the age supposedly governs, while some under that age can be quite mature indeed, at least concerning the subject of that law.

However, what would you propose as an alternative? What legal test could be applied to these situations, and how could people ensure that the test is fair? Could any test for such a thing even truly be fair? I'm rapidly concluding that age-of-majority laws, while certainly a Bad Thing, may be the best that law can work with.

The last problem is not completely equivalent to the others, as here, there is also the privacy of the teenager to be taken into consideration.

While I agree that I don't think anybody has an alternative to age limits, allowing things bit-by-bit seems to be a good way to teach youngsters how to deal with things.

For instance, in Germany, there are two legal drinking ages: 16 for beer, wine, basically anything which isn't booze, and 18 for booze. While obviously, teenagers (myself included) were experimenting with alcohol earlier, they were still under parental supervision and usually `nothing bad happens' (except for a hangover the next morning ). In the States (that's at least my personal impression), `there's a time and a place for everything: college'. From what I have seen personally (while on vacation in Ocean City, MD, for instance) is that College kids drink far more and a lot more than they should than German teenagers.

Ditto for sex. I think gradual age limits are the way to go (although not always an option).

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The last problem is not completely equivalent to the others, as here, there is also the privacy of the teenager to be taken into consideration.

All of the issues I've mentioned bring things which many adults would consider fundamental rights into account. As far as that goes, the last is no different from the others. Whether we're talking about privacy, voting, drinking, or whatever, there is always a balan

Parents have a duty to raise their children well. I think we can all agree on this. It can be argued that in order for this to happen, it is necessary that the parents be allowed to know what is going on in their children's lives, so that they can respond according to the child's actual situation. This has been found to trump privacy rights in many cases of law. Why, then, should it not also trump privacy rights here? What makes this different?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

All of the issues I've mentioned bring things which many adults would consider fundamental rights into account. As far as that goes, the last is no different from the others. Whether we're talking about privacy, voting, drinking, or whatever, there is always a balan

Parents have a duty to raise their children well. I think we can all agree on this. It can be argued that in order for this to happen, it is necessary that the parents be allowed to know what is going on in their children's lives, so that they can respond according to the child's actual situation. This has been found to trump privacy rights in many cases of law. Why, then, should it not also trump privacy rights here? What makes this different?

It has to do with the fact that the older children/teenager become, the more rights they have. Be it drinking in Germany or driving in the States. So gradually, they do have more and more rights to make decisions for themselves, and this goes both ways. I'm \emph{not} against a legal age per se, but to give you a better idea what I mean, I illustrate the current situation of German law.

-14: having sex is illegal. The minor cannot be held accountable by law, the parents are solely responsible.
14-16: allowed with parents' consent. Practically, nobody asks for permission, though And even if there are some complaints, usually, this isn't settled in court, at least I haven't heard of many cases.
16+: the teenager is allowed to have sex even without consent by guardians. In this case, the doctor must not tell the parents unless the child's life is in danger, otherwise he'd face criminal charges.

I think this takes care of most eventualities and works pretty well (in conjunction with pretty early sex ed, regular use of condoms, etc.). I don't remember having any pregnancies at school in Germany (in my High School in the States, there were a few).

Also, if the underage patient must fear the doctor will tell her parents about it, she might not come at all. My girlfriend for instance rescued a friend of hers (who wasn't underage, but abortions are illegal in Mexico), because she tried to `do it herself', almost killing herself in the process. The primary concern of a doctor is the patient's life, so I don't think it should be mandatory all the way until the teen is 18.

[NYCFarmboy]

why I hate republicans and texans

share the love.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

14-16: allowed with parents' consent. Practically, nobody asks for permission, though

As far as I know you can just have sex with 14+ in Germany unless there is a dependent relationship. I never heard that consent of the parents is required for sex in Germany.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

As far as I know you can just have sex with 14+ in Germany unless there is a dependent relationship. I never heard that consent of the parents is required for sex in Germany.

I thought you needed the parents permission … but some claim this has changed to this. If you were right (which I hope), it makes more sense now

[Y3a]

So by delaying an abortion you might accidently let a woman realize that something IS BEING KILLED that might have been her child? As long as pro-abortion forces gloss over that fact the true nature of whats being done will be diminished.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

why I hate republicans and texans

share the love.

Only Texans love Texans.

[smacintush]

So if a 15 year old girl should be able to get an abortion without permission, because it's HER business between HER and her doctor…should she also be able to have sex with a 30 year old man? After all it's HER body her choice. Right?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I thought you needed the parents permission … but some claim this has changed to this. If you were right (which I hope), it makes more sense now

I relied my statement on primary literature (§174, §176, §176a, §182 StGB). Nowhere does this mention consent of the parents. This was never changed as far as I can think back.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I relied my statement on primary literature (§174, §176, §176a, §182 StGB). Nowhere does this mention consent of the parents. This was never changed as far as I can think back.

Somehow this info got stuck in my head. I don't know why … so I stand corrected

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So if a 15 year old girl should be able to get an abortion without permission, because it's HER business between HER and her doctor…should she also be able to have sex with a 30 year old man? After all it's HER body her choice. Right?

In Germany, the guy could be charged with rape, because it is an abusive relationship. But that has nothing to do with pregnancy/abortion. So don't try to make a rare exception (which would be (in Germany)/could be (in the States) considered a crime. Most teens have sex partners around their age.

[Y3a]

Gee, MORE HATRED from the left..... ho hum.....

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

In Germany, the guy could be charged with rape, because it is an abusive relationship. But that has nothing to do with pregnancy/abortion. So don't try to make a rare exception (which would be (in Germany)/could be (in the States) considered a crime. Most teens have sex partners around their age.

In my state, the girl 15 year old girl and the 30 year old guy would both be breaking the law. In most of America it is a crime.

It has everything to do with CHOOSING what to do with your own body doesn't it. How can anyone sit there and say it is OK for an underage girl to get an abortion without parental consent, but she is NOT allowed to choose who she sleeps with. I thought it was her body, her choice?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

In my state, the girl 15 year old girl and the 30 year old guy would both be breaking the law. In most of America it is a crime.

It has everything to do with CHOOSING what to do with your own body doesn't it. How can anyone sit there and say it is OK for an underage girl to get an abortion without parental consent, but she is NOT allowed to choose who she sleeps with. I thought it was her body, her choice?

What are you talking about? Why do you keep comparing a crime to something legal: sex of two persons around the same age? Again, don't make the rare exception look like the rule. This is natural, 16-year old sleeping with an 18-year old, that kind of stuff. Those people decide what they do with their bodies.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Gee, MORE HATRED from the left..... ho hum.....

where?

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What are you talking about? Why do you keep comparing a crime to something legal: sex of two persons around the same age? Again, don't make the rare exception look like the rule. This is natural, 16-year old sleeping with an 18-year old, that kind of stuff. Those people decide what they do with their bodies.

An 18 year old caught sleeping with a 16 year old could get served with statutory rape. A 16 and 17 year old is OK, but 18 and 21 are pivotal years as related to statutory rape.

[olePigeon]

Making abortion illegal just makes it more dangerous. It won't change women's decisions to get an abortion, it just forces them to find more dangerous alternatives to have the operation done. Also, making it illegal will also make women wait longer and force an increase in late-term abortions.

The best way is to make counseling, planned parenthood, and more literature available.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PBG4 User

An 18 year old caught sleeping with a 16 year old could get served with statutory rape. A 16 and 17 year old is OK, but 18 and 21 are pivotal years as related to statutory rape.

Yeah, I was thinking about the German perspective here.
Rules like these lead to all kinds of funny consequences (a 16 year-old meets a 17 year-old. They have sex for one year, then the older one turns 18 …), but all I'm trying to say is that the extreme examples are by no means the rule.

If a woman (as an adult) gets into an abusive relationship, it's her `choice', but what he does is still a crime. With this in mind (`choice over whom you sleep with'), we can conclude that this matter has nothing to do with abortions without parents' consent.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What are you talking about? Why do you keep comparing a crime to something legal: sex of two persons around the same age? Again, don't make the rare exception look like the rule. This is natural, 16-year old sleeping with an 18-year old, that kind of stuff. Those people decide what they do with their bodies.

Jesus Christ.

Ok, lemme spell it out for you: It is HYPOCRITICAL to make legal abortion for a minor without parental consent ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT BETWEEN HER AND HER DOCTOR, and yet it is NOT legal for her to screw an adult. It's called sexual age of consent. In my state it's 16, many it's 18 or as low as 14 in a few. The idea is that a minor does not have the maturity to decide to have sex at these ages and hence it is illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with them. It is considered abusive BECAUSE OF THE MINORS LACK OF MATURITY.

So how is she too emotionally immature to have sex, yet she is emotionally mature enough to choose to abort a life? (which is a result of having sex in case you didn't realize)

I don't know why you keep saying it's a rare exception, and what's "natural" has nothing to do with it. We're talking about the law.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Not necessarily true. You are forgetting about doctor-patient confidentiality here. The question here is whose rights take precedence: the parents' rights to know what their minor is doing or the personal rights of the teenager/adolescent.

An underage teenager has no rights in such a situation. A doctor MUST have permission from the parents before he can do anything (the same for all kinds of medical operations), patient-doctor confidentiality doesn't mean anything for a minor since it's the parents who decide everything for them. It's like that in Belgium anyway and I suppose it's like that everywhere. I'm not 100% sure of course.

As for ages:
-16: sex is illegal in any form or way, but if it's between two -16 y/o persons then who will ever know/care ? But I don't think there are any serious legal consequences if one of those two -16 year olds gets pregnant. Now it it were to be a pregnancy caused by an 18 y/o with a -16 y/o girl then he would be charged with rape and pedophilia.
-18: your parents are responsible for you, for anything.
+18, the moment you become 18 your parents have nothing to do with you anymore, they have nothing to say anymore. You are on your own.
Drinking age is 16 I guess, I'm not really sure. Nobody really cares about this one You can get alcohol if you look old enough. And even if you don't..

[RAILhead]

14, is some states?!?!? Holy crap, which ones? Arkansas?

My niece is 12, and if anyone lays a hand (or a pecker) on her when she's 14, I'll beat the living daylights out of him with whatever bloody stump is left of him after I pound him into the ground. That's friggin' retarded!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

An underage teenager has no rights in such a situation. A doctor MUST have permission from the parents before he can do anything (the same for all kinds of medical operations), patient-doctor confidentiality doesn't mean anything for a minor since it's the parents who decide everything for them. It's like that in Belgium anyway and I suppose it's like that everywhere. I'm not 100% sure of course.

As for ages:
-16: sex is illegal in any form or way, but if it's between two -16 y/o persons then who will ever know/care ? But I don't think there are any serious legal consequences if one of those two -16 year olds gets pregnant. Now it it were to be a pregnancy caused by an 18 y/o with a -16 y/o girl then he would be charged with rape and pedophilia.
-18: your parents are responsible for you, for anything.
+18, the moment you become 18 your parents have nothing to do with you anymore, they have nothing to say anymore. You are on your own.
Drinking age is 16 I guess, I'm not really sure. Nobody really cares about this one You can get alcohol if you look old enough. And even if you don't..

In Germany at least, it's different.
In Germany, a teenager could even have an abortion of the parents are against it (if the doctor assesses the girl is sufficiently mature to decide, which is usually the case if the girl is older than 16). Also, an abortion must not be performed against the will of the girl.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Jesus Christ.

Ok, lemme spell it out for you: It is HYPOCRITICAL to make legal abortion for a minor without parental consent ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT BETWEEN HER AND HER DOCTOR, and yet it is NOT legal for her to screw an adult. It's called sexual age of consent. In my state it's 16, many it's 18 or as low as 14 in a few. The idea is that a minor does not have the maturity to decide to have sex at these ages and hence it is illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with them. It is considered abusive BECAUSE OF THE MINORS LACK OF MATURITY.

So how is she too emotionally immature to have sex, yet she is emotionally mature enough to choose to abort a life? (which is a result of having sex in case you didn't realize)

I don't know why you keep saying it's a rare exception, and what's "natural" has nothing to do with it. We're talking about the law.

Yeah, and the law differs first of all, in the US even on a state-by-state basis. And the example with the couple whose age is just one year apart should tip you off that the intention is not to keep teenagers from having sex (which is a fact anyway), but to prevent unhealthy and abusive relationships. These are the exception rather than the rule.

If the law were to say, teenagers completely lack the maturity to have sex, the age limit would be 18/21. So you're wrong about that part, too. The law says that teenagers are mature enough to have sexual relations with other teenagers. It's not just my opinion, it's legal fact.

And so teenagers who have sex, are also aware of the consequences. A girl has to ultimately decide on her own what she does with her body, and the parents cannot force to have an abortion nor should not (like in Germany) force her not to.

So you don't need to spell out anything, my spelling is quite fine.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

14, is some states?!?!? Holy crap, which ones? Arkansas?

My niece is 12, and if anyone lays a hand (or a pecker) on her when she's 14, I'll beat the living daylights out of him with whatever bloody stump is left of him after I pound him into the ground. That's friggin' retarded!

AFAIK, there is no state in the union that allows for statutory consent of females at the age of 14. The minimum age for their consent is 16. There is at least one state that allows for male consent at the age of 14, however. I bet a lot of people were misinformed by what they heard on Reno 911.